Ms P Benton v , solicitor, Slater and Gordon Queens House Kelso Ltd — 2018

Ms Benton was a registered nurse employed by Queens House Kelso Ltd from 1 October 2007 until her summary dismissal on 18 September 2017. She brought claims of unfair dismissal and entitlement to notice pay. The tribunal accepted that conduct was a potentially fair reason for dismissal, and approached fairness under section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell/Burchill guidance on whether the employer genuinely believed the misconduct, had reasonable grounds, and carried out as much investigation as was reasonable.

The tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant was guilty of the specific misconduct later relied on. It found that the allegations were framed too generally, that the decision-makers did not identify with precision what exact acts were said to have occurred, and that the report and dismissal letter did not set out clearly what was said or done, when, or where. If that conclusion was wrong, the tribunal held that the respondent still lacked reasonable grounds because the investigation was too thin and the allegations were not investigated with sufficient specificity.

The tribunal found significant flaws in the process. Dr Douglas was involved throughout, from suspension through investigation, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, and appeal. The claimant was not allowed to be accompanied at the investigatory meeting despite the contractual procedure, the respondent did not follow its own dismissal procedure requiring a sub-committee, and the appeal was not handled impartially because Mr Jones did not give independent consideration to it and Dr Douglas remained involved. The tribunal also criticised the investigation for inadequate minutes, failure to record questions asked, failure to provide the claimant with key material, failure to investigate why the complainants were anonymous, and failure to pursue other obvious lines of inquiry.

The tribunal therefore held that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively unfair, and that the claimant had also been wrongfully dismissed, so the breach of contract claim succeeded. No additional damages were awarded for the contractual claim. In remedy, the tribunal found the claimant was 50 years old, had 9 years' service, a gross weekly pay of £617.76, and net losses to the hearing of £9,713.84, with ongoing weekly net loss of £165.19 and pension loss of £28.85. It awarded a basic award of £6,601.50 and a compensatory award of £20,303.92, declined any Polkey reduction, applied a 10% uplift for breach of the ACAS Code, and then applied a 10% reduction for contribution, leaving the stated compensatory figure unchanged.